Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Illegal to lower crown of helmets
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
renndawg37


Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, ON
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Someone should lower the crown of their helmet into Goodell's face.

/Thread
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 18782
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

renndawg37 wrote:
Someone should lower the crown of their helmet into Goodell's face.

/Thread
Sarcasm? I seriously can't tell in these threads. So many people are actually under the impression that Goodell had something to do with this that I'm never sure when people are serious and when they aren't.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
renndawg37


Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, ON
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

minutemancl wrote:
Seriously: take away facemasks and none of these new rules will be necessary for offense or defense.


Huh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 18782
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FirstDownFaulk wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:

Sarcasm noted, but this is simply for those who are truly curious....

Take the "McDonalds Hot Coffee Idiot" for instance. The woman sues McDonalds because she put a HOT coffee between her legs, is subsequently spilled burning her......Common sense would tell us that HOT coffee is HOT and HOT liquids can burn human flesh...COMMON SENSE. You lose.

Same applies to football....you're aware of the risks, and choose to take those risks. It's common sense that injuries are going to occur in a high speed collision sport.
That is the Reasonable Person Standard. And you're arguing contributory negligence which was considered and ultimately comparative negligence was used.

Common sense would also tell us that keeping your coffee at dangerous temperatures in terms of heat to save money after numerous complaints and injuries suffered due to that temperature...you'd change the temperature you keep it at.

McDonalds did not and thus was found liable. I recommend looking into the facts of that case before citing it. It's an interesting case.
Doesn't matter.....hot is hot. Period. Would you put a styrofoam cup of hot coffee between legs ?? COMMON SENSE

The justice system in this country has turned into a toy. Simply a means of income for people based solely on their own stupidity.
Sweet jebus, please just don't. This can of worms has been opened so many times. And 90% of the time, it's by people who clearly understand neither the case nor the judicial system as a whole. That appears to be what happened here.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
renndawg37


Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, ON
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fretgod99 wrote:
renndawg37 wrote:
Someone should lower the crown of their helmet into Goodell's face.

/Thread
Sarcasm? I seriously can't tell in these threads. So many people are actually under the impression that Goodell had something to do with this that I'm never sure when people are serious and when they aren't.


Bingo...lol

I don't like the rule but I really don't see it being much of an issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 18212
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:

Sarcasm noted, but this is simply for those who are truly curious....

Take the "McDonalds Hot Coffee Idiot" for instance. The woman sues McDonalds because she put a HOT coffee between her legs, is subsequently spilled burning her......Common sense would tell us that HOT coffee is HOT and HOT liquids can burn human flesh...COMMON SENSE. You lose.

Same applies to football....you're aware of the risks, and choose to take those risks. It's common sense that injuries are going to occur in a high speed collision sport.


That is the Reasonable Person Standard. And you're arguing contributory negligence which was considered and ultimately comparative negligence was used.

Common sense would also tell us that keeping your coffee at dangerous temperatures in terms of heat to save money after numerous complaints and injuries suffered due to that temperature...you'd change the temperature you keep it at.

McDonalds did not and thus was found liable. I recommend looking into the facts of that case before citing it. It's an interesting case.
I was just about to write a brief on the "Hot Coffee" case and saw you already educated young minds on what actually happened in that case, thanks for that.

And yes that was his concession.

And the reason there is no common sense rule in the court system is a) what is really common sense (legally speaking)? and b) does common sense really overrule negligence. Continuing our current example, hot coffee is hot, but does the description "hot" serve as a proper warning for coffee served at near boiling temperatures? How about if it was served in a cup that had a known manufacturing defect in which there was a 0.5% chance that the cup could disintegrate after 5 mins of being filled? Common sense doesn't mean that a company shouldn't be held responsible for negligence b/c while the idea of common sense says we know coffee is hot, it doesn't mean that we know that spilled coffee from a particular establishment could cause 2nd & 3rd degree burns, or that if you didn't drink said scalding beverage w/in 5 mins of the cup being filled that you could spill said scalding beverage through no fault of your own, causing 2nd & 3rd degree burns.

That is why liability can never be fully waived. Because if an entity does something to put you in danger w/o your knowledge of it, say telling the public for years that there is no research showing a connection from concussions and long term health effects including but not limited to dimensia, depression, memory loss, lost motor skills, when in fact said entity has conducted the research and knows that there is, why SHOULDN'T they be held responsible. Does common sense mean that all public or private entities should be able to take advantage of misinformation and flat out irresponsible behavior?
_________________

OneBadCat wrote:
Ahah Okay first of all Gamble was lost to IR this year but when healthy he proved to be 2nd only to Revis last season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Typical_Lions


Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213
Location: Carpathia
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fretgod99 wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:

Sarcasm noted, but this is simply for those who are truly curious....

Take the "McDonalds Hot Coffee Idiot" for instance. The woman sues McDonalds because she put a HOT coffee between her legs, is subsequently spilled burning her......Common sense would tell us that HOT coffee is HOT and HOT liquids can burn human flesh...COMMON SENSE. You lose.

Same applies to football....you're aware of the risks, and choose to take those risks. It's common sense that injuries are going to occur in a high speed collision sport.
That is the Reasonable Person Standard. And you're arguing contributory negligence which was considered and ultimately comparative negligence was used.

Common sense would also tell us that keeping your coffee at dangerous temperatures in terms of heat to save money after numerous complaints and injuries suffered due to that temperature...you'd change the temperature you keep it at.

McDonalds did not and thus was found liable. I recommend looking into the facts of that case before citing it. It's an interesting case.
Doesn't matter.....hot is hot. Period. Would you put a styrofoam cup of hot coffee between legs ?? COMMON SENSE

The justice system in this country has turned into a toy. Simply a means of income for people based solely on their own stupidity.
Sweet jebus, please just don't. This can of worms has been opened so many times. And 90% of the time, it's by people who clearly understand neither the case nor the judicial system as a whole. That appears to be what happened here.


Is this a reference to the coffee/old lady case? If so it just show how ignorant they are or how coerced they are when in comes to tort reform.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
darnell


Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1873
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, for example, is this Marshawn Lynch-Dashon Goldson play one that would be flagged on Lynch under the new rules?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt62eVLZprc

If so, that is just an awful rule. Plays like that set the tone for football the way we love it. What is Lynch supposed to do their? Step out of bounds like a wuss? Let Goldson plow him in the other direction?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 18212
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darnell wrote:
So, for example, is this Marshawn Lynch-Dashon Goldson play one that would be flagged on Lynch under the new rules?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt62eVLZprc

If so, that is just an awful rule. Plays like that set the tone for football the way we love it. What is Lynch supposed to do their? Step out of bounds like a wuss? Let Goldson plow him in the other direction?
No, that is not illegal, Lynch clearly never dropped his helmet.
_________________

OneBadCat wrote:
Ahah Okay first of all Gamble was lost to IR this year but when healthy he proved to be 2nd only to Revis last season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CowboysTilIDie


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 3271
Location: Amarillo, TX
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darnell wrote:
So, for example, is this Marshawn Lynch-Dashon Goldson play one that would be flagged on Lynch under the new rules?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt62eVLZprc

If so, that is just an awful rule. Plays like that set the tone for football the way we love it. What is Lynch supposed to do their? Step out of bounds like a wuss? Let Goldson plow him in the other direction?


In my opinion that would not be a flag. It looked to me that he lowered his shoulder moreso than the crown of his helmet. This rule is going to be INSANELY difficult for the officials to differentiate between. Puts way too much pressure on the officials to make that call in a split second.
_________________

Huge props to LORK for the sig

Official Supporter of "The Process."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
titanrick


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 11815
Location: Denver, CO
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So it's now official: this will remain the greatest running play in NFL history.



Very Happy
_________________


Congrats, Seahawk fans!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sandwhich


Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 8211
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it will be that hard to judge the calls. I believe they'll only be called in situations where it's just obvious and unnecessary for the RB to bulldoze into someone with the top of their helmet.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mistakebytehlak


Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 42628
Location: Brooklyn, NY
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thelonebillsfan wrote:
They've seriously just effectively neutered the reigning MVP. What's the point in even having these big bodied running backs who truck through the line to get short yardage anymore?

Short yardage running suffers, power running is effectively neutered, many, many players are rendered FAR less effective.

Why? So players don't commit irreperable harm to their brains, neck and backs and potentially commit suicide, become incapacitated, enter deep depressions, get early onset alzheimers or act out in rage such as Owen Thomas, Justin Strezelcyk, Junior Seau, Andre Waters, Mike Webster, Aaron Sears, Ted Johnson and many others.


Fixed it for ya

who cares about short yardage

ITS A GAME FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT
this is their lives. their health and well being > your entertainment for 17 weeks out of the year
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hornbybrown


Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 14628
Location: 1600 Pennyslvania Ave
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mistakebytehlak wrote:
Thelonebillsfan wrote:
They've seriously just effectively neutered the reigning MVP. What's the point in even having these big bodied running backs who truck through the line to get short yardage anymore?

Short yardage running suffers, power running is effectively neutered, many, many players are rendered FAR less effective.

Why? So players don't commit irreperable harm to their brains, neck and backs and potentially commit suicide, become incapacitated, enter deep depressions, get early onset alzheimers or act out in rage such as Owen Thomas, Justin Strezelcyk, Junior Seau, Andre Waters, Mike Webster, Aaron Sears, Ted Johnson and many others.


Fixed it for ya

who cares about short yardage

ITS A GAME FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT
this is their lives. their health and well being > your entertainment for 17 weeks out of the year


Not everyone is a browns fans. There are these games that happen after the 17th week. We just don't play in those because we are not very good.


So with this new rule does that mean I have to watch Lingerie Football if I want to see real football.

They choose to play, eff there health they know the risks and still decide to play.
If I was in charge (Imagine that Shocked ) I would make them sign disclaimers saying they accept that this game could ruin/end there lifes.

Then go back to whatever the rules were in the 70's.

Then they simply choose to accept the risk or not.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballProdiG


Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Posts: 7319
Location: The Film Room
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FirstDownFaulk wrote:
reckless123 wrote:
My problem with the rule is that its going to be flagged often. Remember you cant review flags, so the officials are going to be wrong on occasions. Its a dumb rule and hate the way that the NFL is exaggerating but some people are going too far with their concerns.

As I said earlier....what happens when the ball is inside the 5 ?? How are teams supposed to run it in ??

I really hope this is one of those rules they pass simply for the good publicity and isn't enforced all that much....unlike the defenseless receiver rule, helmet to helmet rule, or late hits on the quarterback...


Did you not read or see my post at all? This does NOT affect 3rd down running, goal line running OR power running at all. Because it ONLY applies in the OPEN FIELD. They are not telling people to run standing straight up so they can get close-lined. That defeats the purpose of the safety rule and would make absolutely no sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 16 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group